Every political party in Britain would now like to be thought of as “the party of business”. And, simultaneously, each would claim to be the “party of the family” as well. The phrase “work-life balance” has moved from the backwaters of sociology to the very front of electoral politics. There is the danger, however, that the balance will end up excluding the “work” part of the equation. Families need business as much as businesses plainly need families.
Patricia Hewitt, the Trade and Industry Secretary, has indicated that she wants to secure extra rights for “hard-working families”, presumably as opposed to slothful families. These would include a major increase in paternity pay for new fathers, a significant extension of the amount of paid maternity leave for new mothers and, although this aspect was rather vague, further “flexibility” for employees who are the parents of young children or who care for the elderly and disabled. This initiative comes even though employment law has already been amended significantly since 1997; the damaging impact of EU legislation is being felt; and it is increasingly obvious that if the EU constitution were adopted, the charter of fundamental rights would, despite the contrary claims of ministers, become, over time, embedded in domestic law.
Ms Hewitt naively contends that because an increase in paternity or maternity pay would be met by the Government, a “family-friendly” policy can be found without an invoice being sent to companies. In reality, a substantial cost would be transferred to the private sector. The disruption caused by shifts of personnel and the uncertainty created by the need to hold open a job right until the moment that maternity leave ends is substantial. It is a significantly weightier burden for small business than for larger concerns, but it is not negligible for even the biggest corporations. It creates a disincentive to hire for fear that it will become even more challenging to manage employees, especially younger men and women.
New Labour is fond, in other policy domains, of calling for rights to exist in tandem with responsibilities. That logic must apply to employment law. It is not unreasonable, for example, for there to be a fixed point in maternity leave when employees are obliged to declare whether they intend to return to work and what sort of hours they feel able to do. The idea that, instead, an employee could be on paid maternity leave for up to 12 months and then decide to stay at home would create a sense of unfairness in the workplace. Ms Hewitt will invite stiff opposition if she shows no sense of balance and employment reality.
That there is a market for the business vote in British politics is healthy. Vincent Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, set out his stall in a tough speech yesterday. David Laws, his deputy, reaffirmed his belief in economic liberalism at a meeting hosted by The Times. Both have sought rightly to promote deregulation. The temptation for politicians of all shades, nevertheless, will be to deregulate and reregulate simultaneously. A changing perspective on work and life is understandable. Shrewd employers will appreciate this when they bargain with employees and offer new conditions in place of the old pay package. Real labour-market “flexibility” cannot be achieved by ministerial imposition. The unemployed, after all, do not have an ideal work-life balance.